British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
CIZKOVA v. SERBIA - 8044/06 [2010] ECHR 46 (19 January 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/46.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 46
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF ČÍZKOVÁ v. SERBIA
(Application
no. 8044/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19
January 2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of ČíZková v. Serbia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 December 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 8044/06) against the State Union of Serbia and
Montenegro, lodged with the Court, under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”), by a Czech
national, Ms Drahomira ČíZková (“the
applicant”), on 16 February 2006.
As
of 3 June 2006, following the Montenegrin declaration of
independence, Serbia remained the sole respondent in the proceedings
before the Court.
The
applicant was represented by Mr S. Myslil, a lawyer practising in
Prague. The Serbian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
On
30 August 2006 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it was also decided to examine the merits of the
application at the same time as its admissibility.
The Czech Government were invited to intervene in the
proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention). However, by
letter of 12 February 2007, they informed the Court that they did not
wish to exercise their right to do so.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Tabor, Czech Republic.
On
27 August 1982 the applicant was involved in a major traffic accident
in Serbia. Her car was destroyed in a head-on collision with an
inter-city bus while the applicant and her family members all
sustained serious injuries.
On
16 May 1985 the applicant filed a compensation claim against a
Serbian insurance company with the Municipal Court in Novi Sad
(Opštinski sud u Novom Sadu).
Following
two remittals, both of which took place before Serbia ratified the
Convention, on 25 October 2002 the parties in the domestic
proceedings informed the Municipal Court that they were willing to
consider a friendly settlement.
On
18 March 2003 the Municipal Court suspended the proceedings, stating
that they would be continued should the parties fail to reach a
settlement.
Since
the friendly settlement negotiations were unsuccessful, on
13 February 2004 the applicant urged the Municipal Court to
resume the proceedings.
Following
at least three scheduled hearings and the receipt of an expert's
report, on 14 June 2007 the Municipal Court ultimately ruled partly
in favour of the applicant. On an unspecified date thereafter this
judgment became final since neither party filed an appeal against it.
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN QUESTION
The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that
the length of the proceedings in question had been incompatible with
the “reasonable time” requirement which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
The
Government contested that argument.
The
Court observes that the proceedings in question ended by 14 June
2007. Since the respondent State ratified the Convention on 4 March
2004, they have thus been within the Court's competence ratione
temporis for a period of more than three years and three months
at one level of jurisdiction.
The
Court also recalls that, in order to determine the reasonableness of
the delay at issue, regard must be had to the state of the case on
the date of ratification (see, mutatis mutandis, Styranowski
v. Poland, 30 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions
1998 VIII) and notes that on 3 March 2004 the impugned
proceedings had already been pending for almost nineteen years in
all.
The
Government raised various objections to the admissibility of the
applicant's complaint. However, the Court has rejected similar
objections in many previous cases (see, for example,
Cvetković v. Serbia, no.
17271/04, §§ 38 and 42, 10 June 2008; Tomić
v. Serbia, no. 25959/06, §§ 81 and 82,
26 June 2007; V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, §§ 85
and 86, 13 March 2007). It finds no particular
circumstances in the instant case which would require a departure
from this jurisprudence. It therefore declares this complaint
admissible.
The
Government further stated that there had been no violation of
Article 6.
The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000 VII).
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case.
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In
view of its case-law on the subject, the Court therefore considers
that the length of the impugned proceedings was excessive and failed
to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has
accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION CONCERNING THE FAIRNESS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN QUESTION
The
applicant further complained under Article 6 of the Convention that
the proceedings at issue had been unfair.
The
Court notes that the applicant did not avail herself of the
opportunity to file an appeal against the Municipal Court's judgment
of 14 June 2007. It follows that this part of the application is
inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
The
applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) and EUR 130,000 in respect of
the non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages suffered, respectively.
As
regards the former, the Court considers that the applicant must have
suffered some non-pecuniary damage as a result of the procedural
delay at issue. Accordingly, taking into account the circumstances of
the case and making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 1,200 under this
head.
The
Court, however, does not discern a causal link between the violation
found and the pecuniary damage sought. It
therefore rejects the applicant's claim in this regard.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses. Accordingly,
the Court is not required to make an award under this head.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Declares the complaint concerning the length of
the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final, in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,200 (one
thousand two hundred euros) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage
suffered, which sum is to be converted into the national currency of
the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of
settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 January 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally
Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar Prеsident
